[Fwd: postfix patch]

[Robin Elfrink]

I guess I sent this one to the wrong list, didn't I?

Robin

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: postfix patch
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:49:10 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-From: debian-bsd at lists.debian.org
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:49:00 +0200
From: Robin Elfrink <elfrink at introweb.nl>
To: debian-bsd at lists.debian.org

Hi,


I'm working on getting postfix built natively on GNU/kFreeBSD (and
GNU/Hurd). I took the patch I made a long time ago. The GNU/Hurd
patch, which is already in the Debian postfix package, is almost
similar (should be, because it's mostly cut&paste).

The one thing Wietse Venema is worried about is locking.

For FreeBSD following is defined:

#define HAS_FLOCK_LOCK
#define HAS_FCNTL_LOCK
#define INTERNAL_LOCK   MYFLOCK_STYLE_FLOCK
#define DEF_MAILBOX_LOCK "flock"

For GNU/kFreeBSD I copied the definitions from Linux2.x:

#define HAS_FLOCK_LOCK
#define HAS_FCNTL_LOCK
#define INTERNAL_LOCK   MYFLOCK_STYLE_FLOCK
#define DEF_MAILBOX_LOCK "fcntl, dotlock"   /* RedHat >= 4.x */


So the question is: Should I keep 'dotlock' in there? I seem to
remember that was used on Solaris a long time ago as well. The
Linux1.x kernel definitions in postfix use _only_ dotlock.

Is it safe to remove 'dotlock'?


I've tested with and without on my system, but since it's my own
little box there's not much usage, plus I'm using maildir for my
mailboxes so maybe the box is not busy enough to trigger an error.



Robin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-REQUEST at lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster at lists.debian.org